2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Has motivation issues.

He is going to drive fans nuts. So inconsistent.
I went to a Wrangler's game recently v. Winnipeg's farm, and he was one of the guys I was looking forward to watching.
He was invisible and disinterested the entire game.
Then scored the overtime winner all by himself.

I'm not a big fan. But I recognize the high end skill is there.

[CSharp]

The way the Flames are playing right now, they ain't moving no one! Heck, they might even be buyers at the trade deadline!

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

He is going to drive fans nuts. So inconsistent.
I went to a Wrangler's game recently v. Winnipeg's farm, and he was one of the guys I was looking forward to watching.
He was invisible and disinterested the entire game.
Then scored the overtime winner all by himself.

I'm not a big fan. But I recognize the high end skill is there.

Oh, those guys are so frustrating. I wonder if it is a drive thing or they just don't ahve the fitness to be engaged at 100% all the time.

[Toonage]

Glory hounds probably

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by CSharp

The way the Flames are playing right now, they ain't moving no one! Heck, they might even be buyers at the trade deadline!

Nah, I still think the only outcomes are sign or trade. Hanifin is the only one i wouldn't be too upset on them signing

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Sofa GM

Apologize for the question as it has probably been asked and answered numerous times on this thread already.

If a sign and trade is to happen with any of our players, are we able to retain on the final year of their existing deal as part of the trade or does that ability go away when the new deal is signed prior to being dealt.

When people say "sign & trade", I assume what they actually mean is a "trade & sign"... which really just means the acquiring team and player are both interested in signing an extension shortly after the trade rather than playing out the contract and the player going to free agency. Basically, this is like the Stone and Horvat trades where they players were traded then signed long-term extensions shortly after.

From the trading team's perspective, it's mostly about allowing the acquiring team to talk to the player's agent to determine if the player is amicable to signing an extension and to probably talk about the money it will take to get a deal done. There's not any reason for the trading team to be involved in the next contract other than allowing the conversation to happen with hopes it will increase what the other team is willing to pay.


True "sign & trade" deals don't really happen in the NHL (except in special situations like the Tkachuk trade) because there's really no advantage for any of the parties to do it that way. As you say, it would also prevent the trading team from retaining salary on the current contract.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by getbak

As you say, it would also prevent the trading team from retaining salary on the current contract.

I don't think it would. They are still two separate contracts. Retain on the first and the second is full freight. Doesn't really make sense for the Flames to sign the second contract though.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by getbak

When people say "sign & trade", I assume what they actually mean is a "trade & sign"... which really just means the acquiring team and player are both interested in signing an extension shortly after the trade rather than playing out the contract and the player going to free agency. Basically, this is like the Stone and Horvat trades where they players were traded then signed long-term extensions shortly after.

From the trading team's perspective, it's mostly about allowing the acquiring team to talk to the player's agent to determine if the player is amicable to signing an extension and to probably talk about the money it will take to get a deal done. There's not any reason for the trading team to be involved in the next contract other than allowing the conversation to happen with hopes it will increase what the other team is willing to pay.


True "sign & trade" deals don't really happen in the NHL (except in special situations like the Tkachuk trade) because there's really no advantage for any of the parties to do it that way. As you say, it would also prevent the trading team from retaining salary on the current contract.

It "Sign and Trade" only makes sense if you are trading an RFA in the offseason and the team wants to sign him to an 8 year contract. Since in those scenarios only the trading team would be able to offer 8 years at that time.

In any of these UFA trades they'd be eligible for an 8 year deal since they'd be on their new team before the trade deadline, so really no need for a sign and trade - they could just re-sign afterwards.

What could be done though is the Flames allowing the team to have contract discussions before a trade...since that way if they know they can agree on a contract that is favorable for both sides then they may be willing to give up more in return.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

He is going to drive fans nuts. So inconsistent.
I went to a Wrangler's game recently v. Winnipeg's farm, and he was one of the guys I was looking forward to watching.
He was invisible and disinterested the entire game.
Then scored the overtime winner all by himself.

I'm not a big fan. But I recognize the high end skill is there.

To be fair, I thought the same thing about Zary in a handful of games I went to last year.

You just never know

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

He is going to drive fans nuts. So inconsistent.
I went to a Wrangler's game recently v. Winnipeg's farm, and he was one of the guys I was looking forward to watching.
He was invisible and disinterested the entire game.
Then scored the overtime winner all by himself.

I'm not a big fan. But I recognize the high end skill is there.

Depends on what his motivation issues are too.

Is he just lazy?

Or is he a guy that believes he's too good for the AHL so he's not trying 100%?

Because if he's just lazy then that can be a bad habit to break...but the latter can sometimes get you a star once they actually make it to the NHL.

I remember people thinking Ryan Getzlaf was lazy and had motivational issues...when really the guy just didn't want to play in the WHL anymore.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Oh, those guys are so frustrating. I wonder if it is a drive thing or they just don't ahve the fitness to be engaged at 100% all the time.

For Lambert he grew up with his dad playing professional hockey, his uncles and cousin play at a high level of hockey as well. This doesn't mean that he will automatically have great fitness but it is hard to imagine that he should have any fitness issues unless he doesn't care and that goes back to drive.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Depends on what his motivation issues are too.

Is he just lazy?

Or is he a guy that believes he's too good for the AHL so he's not trying 100%?

Because if he's just lazy then that can be a bad habit to break...but the latter can sometimes get you a star once they actually make it to the NHL.

I remember people thinking Ryan Getzlaf was lazy and had motivational issues...when really the guy just didn't want to play in the WHL anymore.

it's been an issue for him for a long time. Including at WJCs and what not, where they were important games and he was awful.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Gotta respectfully disagree with you on a few points:

Agreed on Vanacek and Foote, although if Foote develops like an Adam Lowry, you've struck gold. Kakko was trending up before this year, which has been a disaster for him, but he had a respectable 17 points in 48 games in his 19 yo season, 18 in 43 the following season, then 40 points last year as a 21 yo- very good production. I have no doubt he could be a first-line RW by the time he's 25-26.

Nemec will an elite two-way player, and I have no doubts that he has offense in him- perhaps even point-per-game scoring potential in his prime.

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Kakko, Schneider and a 2nd for Tanev would be an incredible return.

Like it's unbelieveable fan fiction from capfriendly's trade generator that is never happening but it would be an incredible return.

If you think that's not a good return then you're going to be very dissapointed in the return for Tanev when he's moved.

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Nemec confidently tracks to be a top pairing dman. If only we could actually get a prospect that good. I doubt we can

Yeah, I didn't take pay enough attention to the assets going out and although I do not like the idea of adding Coronato to the deal this return is clearly very good for Calgary.

I'm still not a Kakko fan, and while Schneider and Nemec are indeed quality young Dmen, I don't see the offensive upside in them so while they'd be very useful I just don't think they'd ever be #1 Dmen. But that's still an excellent return for Tanev/Markstrom as the main pieces going out.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It "Sign and Trade" only makes sense if you are trading an RFA in the offseason and the team wants to sign him to an 8 year contract. Since in those scenarios only the trading team would be able to offer 8 years at that time.

Would RFA make a difference?
I thought the issue with Tkachuk was that he had an arbitration hearing coming up.

[Flamesfan05]

Nobody is going to trade a 20 yrs old with 1st pairing potential for a rental and a 35 yrs old inconsistent goalie

Doesn’t matter what you think of him. They drafted him 2nd overall. They are happy with him. They are a young team. They don’t need to go all in now

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Would RFA make a difference?
I thought the issue with Tkachuk was that he had an arbitration hearing coming up.

In order to sign an 8 year deal you have to have been on the teams roster at the prior deadline.

So Flames could have traded Tkachuk to Florida and he could have just signed a 7 year deal, but in order to get the 8th year it needed to be a sign and trade.

It's why it really only makes sense for RFAs in the offseason (I guess UFAs too if a team really wants to get an 8th year but it would have to happens before July 1)

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Would RFA make a difference?
I thought the issue with Tkachuk was that he had an arbitration hearing coming up.

Tkachuk didn't have a contract in place and Florida could have only signed him for 7 years because the player needs to be on the team by trade deadline to get an 8 year deal.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Depends on what his motivation issues are too.

Is he just lazy?

Or is he a guy that believes he's too good for the AHL so he's not trying 100%?

Because if he's just lazy then that can be a bad habit to break...but the latter can sometimes get you a star once they actually make it to the NHL.

I remember people thinking Ryan Getzlaf was lazy and had motivational issues...when really the guy just didn't want to play in the WHL anymore.

His issues appear to be carrying over to the AHL. If he thinks he's above any league but the NHL, that's a pretty dangerous attitude to have. He was a late 1st round pick and didn't really accomplish much in the WJC tournaments he played in.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I don't think it would. They are still two separate contracts. Retain on the first and the second is full freight. Doesn't really make sense for the Flames to sign the second contract though.

In the CBA, if a player signs a new contract while he still has an existing contract in place, it is treated as an extension of the existing contract.

The same rule would also prevent the Flames from being able to trade Backlund for the remainder of this season's contract while keeping next season's new contract, or trading next season's contract to a different team than they trade this season's. Under the CBA, it's all considered one contract.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by getbak

In the CBA, if a player signs a new contract while he still has an existing contract in place, it is treated as an extension of the existing contract.

The same rule would also prevent the Flames from being able to trade Backlund for the remainder of this season's contract while keeping next season's new contract, or trading next season's contract to a different team than they trade this season's. Under the CBA, it's all considered one contract.

Oh interesting. Did not know that